· Private foundation
Fleishhacker Foundation
Its FY2024 filing reports that it accepted unsolicited grant applications.
What you funded, over time
Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year — across FY2018–2024.
Where the money goes
Your grants by size, and where they go.
By grant size · FY2024
- Under $10k86 grants · $356k
- $10k–50k39 grants · $538k
| Recipient | Amount |
|---|---|
| Lavender Youth Recreation Info Ctr | $25,000 |
| Community Education Partnerships | $20,000 |
| Somos Familia | $18,000 |
| Oakland LGBTQ Community Center | $18,000 |
| Side by Side | $18,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $17,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $17,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $17,500 |
| Individual grant recipient | $17,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $17,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $17,000 |
| Individual grant recipient | $17,000 |
| Chinese for Affirmative Action | $16,000 |
| Rainbow Community Center of Contra | $15,000 |
| Real Options for City Kids | $15,000 |
Do your dollars go where the need is?
Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, then read against the area’s typical level.
Your human-services grants (FY18–24, $218k) land where the poverty rate runs at 11%, against an area that typically sits at 10%. 97% of those dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of your grants land in higher-need ZIPs.
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty linein the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP; grantee ZIP can differ from where services are delivered.
Which US states your grants reach
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are actually delivered. Need from public data — U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA — shown as context about the area, never attributed to your giving.
Who you back again
Which organizations you funded more than once, and which you funded a single time. Each grantee is matched to its own filings.
And the relationships you keep tend to grow: grantees you re-up on have seen median revenue of +19% since the first grant, against +11% for the ones you funded once.
118 repeat relationships — 85 still active in FY2024, 33 since wound down; 28 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).
How the two cohorts compare
Organizations
Total granted
Median revenue growth · since first grant
Still filing today
New vs renewed · share of each year
In FY2024, 76% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $211k went to new ones.
Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant
First-time = a grantee’s first year in your filing window; renewed = funded in an earlier year too. As a portfolio matures the renewed share naturally climbs — once funded, an org stays “renewable” — so the signal is the years that buck it (a new-grantee intake wave). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as “new.” Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.
Backed again, and grew
- IFIntersection for the Arts4× · 2018–2024 · $83k · revenue +34%
- DGDANCERS GROUP4× · 2018–2024 · $54k · revenue +77%
- CECommunity Education Partnerships4× · 2018–2024 · $52k · revenue +128%
Funded once
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2019 · $116k
- IGIndividual grant recipientone grant, 2023 · $35k
- JCJEWISH COMMUNITY RELATIONS COUNCIL OF SAN FRANCISCO MARIN & PENINSULAone grant, 2023 · $20k · revenue +1%
Repeat = funded in two or more distinct years; growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.
The map has a center of gravity: the average direction from the rest of the sector toward the organizations the foundation funds — the shape of its giving. Scoring every nonprofit along that direction surfaces the ones that look most like the portfolio. These are the closest matchesthat aren’t grantees — a resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.
SFP presents internationally acclaimed and emerging performing artists, introduces innovative programs, and builds new and diversified audiences for the arts through education and outreach activities.
Dance Film SF DFSF brings dance to wider audiences through the presentation and development of dance-based films. We celebrate the best dance films from around the world, encourage and assist choreographers and filmmakers in the creation…
On the Boards' mission is to invest in leading contemporary performing artists near and far and connect them to a diverse range of communities interested in forward-thinking art and ideas.
As creative producers, we are devoted to the production and presentation of groundbreaking experiences in contemporary performance that use innovative approaches to collaboration, technology, and social engagement. As a service…
Occidental Center for the Arts exists to provide a welcoming and accessible venue for the performing and visual arts in Sonoma County California for local regional national and international artists. our mission is to enrich our community…
Studio Theatre produces exceptional contemporary theatre in deliberately intimate spaces, fostering a more thoughtful, more empathetic, and more connected community, in Washington DC and beyond.
Marin open studios is a non-profit visual arts organization dedicated to engaging and supporting marin county artists and their audiences through events, programs and services. marin open studios champions a diverse and inclusive community…
Shawl-Anderson Dance Center SADC builds and supports a vital and inclusive community for movers of all ages and styles. Founded in 1958, SADC provides dance education, institutional support for artists, a performance and rehearsal venue,…
Rogue Machine Theatre was founded in 2008 as a performing arts organization to serve the greater Los Angeles community in developing and nurturing emerging playwrights, introducing important contemporary works to Southern California and…
For reference, the grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is San Jose Institute of Contemporary Art and the most unlike its peers is Marc Lustgarten Pancreatic Cancer Foundation. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
For each theme you fund, this compares how the sector’s money is shifting with how your own giving is shifting.
Sector change and giving change are each shown relative to their own range, growing (right) or shrinking (left); both normalized, so inflation isn’t mistaken for growth.
Your grantees are a median of 31 years old; the field is 13. You back the established end — and your money leans older still.
The field is 25% startups (under 5 years old) — 1% of your grantees by number, and just 1% of your money.
The orgs you fund almost never close — 0.5% lost their exemption, against 14% of the field you don’t fund.
Age = years since IRS exemption (a founding proxy). “Closed” = auto-revocation for 3 years of non-filing — a floor on closure, not proof, and bigger established orgs lapse least. Association, not causation.
181 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.
Each one resolved to its own IRS returns and tracked year by year — your grant beside their revenue from every source. Association, dated; never a causal claim.
Counted here: distinct organizations you funded across 2017–2025, not grant rows in a single year — so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 181 of the 269 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile; the rest are funded organizations whose filings we could not track year by year.
Where your money sits — by cause, then by grantee
Showing your 200 largest grantees by grant value.
Each org by its size and your share of it — top-left is where you’re load-bearing
Go grantee by grantee — a decade per org, and how each moved after you funded them
A decade per grantee — revenue shaded, your grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.
- Who funds Intersection for the Arts ↗
- Who funds DANCERS GROUP ↗
- Who funds Community Education Partnerships ↗
- Who funds ODC THEATER ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO CONSERVATION CORPS ↗
- Who funds InterMusic SF ↗
- Who funds CHILDREN RISING INC ↗
- Who funds Brava for Women in the Arts dba Brava Theater Center ↗
- Who funds Theatre Bay Area ↗
- Who funds BERKELEY FILM FOUNDATION ↗
- Who funds REDWOOD CITY FRIENDS OF LITERACY ↗
- Who funds LAVENDER YOUTH RECREATION & INFORMATION CENTER INC LYRIC ↗
- Who funds 826 Valencia ↗
- Who funds GIRLS INCORPORATED OF ALAMEDA COUNTY ↗
- Who funds REAL OPTIONS FOR CITY KIDS ↗
- Who funds SAN FRANCISCO CINEMATHEQUE ↗
- Who funds Joe Goode Performance Group ↗
- Who funds COMMUNITY ART STABILIZATION TRUST ↗
- Who funds Yerba Buena Arts & Events dba Yerba Buena Gardens Festival ↗
- Who funds World Arts West ↗
- Who funds Somos Familia ↗
- Who funds Oakland LGBTQ Community Center Inc ↗
- Who funds Side By Side ↗
- Who funds Richmond Art Center ↗
- Who funds Chinese for Affirmative Action ↗
- Who funds CounterPulse ↗
- Who funds The Aurora Theatre Company ↗
- Who funds AXIS Dance Company ↗
- Who funds Bridge the Gap College Prep ↗
The grantmakers whose grantees overlap with yours far more than size alone predicts. Each orbits closer the stronger the alignment; the arcs between them show where they also fund each other. Here it reads as a tightly interlocked camp — most of these funders back each other's grantees too.
Open a dossier: The Zellerbach Family Foundation · Phyllis C Wattis Foundation · Kenneth Rainin Foundation · Walter and Elise Haas Fund · The William & Flora Hewlett Foundation · The San Francisco Foundation · Center for Cultural Innovation · The Sam Mazza Foundation · East Bay Community Foundation · California Humanities · The Bernard Osher Foundation · Gerbode Foundation
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. A research starting point: overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.
Government reliance of your grantees
Every dot is one organization Fleishhacker Foundation funds. Left–right is the share of its income from government; up–down is the share from you. Bigger dots raise more. Filter to federal or a single department — and drag the year to watch it move.
- Mobile Medical Care Inc — 17% of income from government
- A Wider Circle Inc — 6% of income from government
- Round House Theatre Inc — 5% of income from government
- National Center for Jewish Filminc — 4% of income from government
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending — grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that your grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first — a floor, not a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12–24 months.
Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus
How do I get to Fleishhacker Foundation?
Find your warmest path to Fleishhacker Foundation through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.
Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.